Slashdot Mirror


China's CRISPR Twins Might Have Had Their Brains Inadvertently Enhanced (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: The brains of two genetically-edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say. The twins, called Lulu and Nana, were modified using CRISPR, a new gene-editing tool, by a Chinese scientific team to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.

"The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains," says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Silva's lab lab has been uncovering a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory formation and the brain's ability to form new connections. "The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls cognition is impossible to predict and "that is why it should not be done." The Chinese designer babies were created to be resistant to HIV. A team in Shenzhen, China, led by Southern University of Science and Technology He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells.
The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has been fired from the university as He is under investigation in China. There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.

254 comments

  1. Reality imitates art. by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure there was an X-files episode about this.

    1. Re:Reality imitates art. by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      There was the eugenics wars in Star Trek as well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Reality imitates art. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more about the movie Gattaca.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Gattaca the technology matured and was eventually made affordable to everyone. So there was no major class divide between the rich and poor. With divide between the rich and poor growing more than it has in human history, this will make it worse.

    4. Re: Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've not seen the movie have you?

    5. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Khan!!!!!

    6. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even watch Gattaca? The technology was definitely not affordable for everyone.

    7. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Max Zorin from A View to a Kill.

    8. Re: Reality imitates art. by stinkyjak · · Score: 0

      So this is how they plan world domination by 2030...

    9. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gundam Seed comes to mind. There the normal humans eventually discover a procedure to create enhanced humans they called coordinators. They had better reflexes, better intelligence, more resistance to disease, and were stronger. Once the secret was out it led to resentment and eventually war.

      In the anime there is the downside of the Coordinators having difficulty having children, though I'm guessing at some point someone will figure out something that perhaps doesn't do the whole package, but does make a difference, perhaps with no downsides at all. I could easily see the elite having designer babies. Just because something is illegal in one country doesn't mean it will be everywhere. A person only has to be born in a particular country for citizenship. Everything else can be anywhere. Of course I tend to think of it as a bad idea, but it would hardly be the kids fault.

    10. Re: Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when they turn 18?
      Custom build twin goodness!

    11. Re:Reality imitates art. by Humbubba · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new GMO human overlords.

    12. Re:Reality imitates art. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more about the movie Gattaca.

      Sounds like a Valid comparison. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re: Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well government is fairly universal in they want to avoid intelligence in their citizens. No super countries will likely come about without a healthy brain washing campaign to boost.

    14. Re:Reality imitates art. by Lucan+Wai · · Score: 1

      Scary stuff

    15. Re: Reality imitates art. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Lulu and Nana Wiggins?

    16. Re:Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They became more intelligent, just before turning into intelligent Zs and infecting the world. Spread through measles..

    17. Re:Reality imitates art. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There's also Dirty Pair. (should be SFW)

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    18. Re: Reality imitates art. by winse · · Score: 2

      I think it would be more like Lulu and Nana Delphiki as these twins would be comparable to Bean .... not Ender.

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    19. Re: Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beggars in Spain

    20. Re: Reality imitates art. by gtvr · · Score: 1

      We'll find out if they are much smaller than everyone...

    21. Re:Reality imitates art. by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Eve (S01E11)

      If life continues to imitate art, we can expect the twins to develop superhuman intelligence and strength, as well as homicidal psychoses.

    22. Re:Reality imitates art. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      See also the Sleepless series of novels by Nancy Kress. A modification for one thing turns out to have a bunch of different enhancing side effects, leading eventually to a deep division between the "are" and "are nots"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    23. Re:Reality imitates art. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Girls speaking in unison: "We just knew."

    24. Re: Reality imitates art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Age limits are stupid, anyway. Rape is rape is rape, whether it's against a 40 year old or a 14 year old.

      Eliminating age of consent and statutory rape laws will allow the courts to focus on real cases of forced, violent acts of sexual assault.

      Right now there are too many fringe cases of 19 year olds going to jail for fucking their 17 year old girlfriends (and *never* the other way around, thanks to protective daddy syndrome), or sexually-willing teenagers entrapping and blackmailing adults by leveraging these laws in their favour.

      If you are old enough and smart enough to lure a person to your bedroom, then fuck them with the intent of using the sexual exchange to get money from them and power over them by abusing a law that was made with good intentions but zero foresight, you're old enough and smart enough to consent to sex.

      I'll take my -1 now.

  2. Is it to late? by Vanyle · · Score: 3, Funny

    If only we could get some politicians to undergo this procedure...

    1. Re:Is it to late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too many of them are born again as it is.

    2. Re:Is it to late? by geekymachoman · · Score: 2

      > If only we could get some politicians to undergo this procedure...

      If we could get 90 % of the population to undergo this procedure...

      Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that. - George Carlin

    3. Re:Is it to late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that by suggesting politicians aren't intelligent, you're displaying your own lack of intelligence and that you are the problem, not them.

      Most politicians are intelligent. Even the stupid-appearing ones. They are all exceptionally intelligent.

      And they are often very self-serving. Sure, they say and do dumb stuff from time to time, but if they really weren't intelligent, then they wouldn't be such a threat to our society. Dumb people, and the less intelligent, are usually pretty diligent and care about the outcomes of their decisions - often they are more careful because they are often aware they aren't all that intelligent.

      But politicians are both intelligent and cunning. Many are sociopaths. They simply don't care what you think - but because they are intelligent and highly motivated, they can cause significant damage.

      So the next time you find yourself saying, "How did someone that dumb get themselves elected?" remember, they aren't the dumb one. They managed to get elected. Now they are simply out looking out for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

    4. Re:Is it to late? by Shark · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll be smart enough to sway their country's ideology towards liberty without getting disappeared when they grow up. I certainly am not smart enough to figure out how that could be done now, let alone in a couple decades.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    5. Re:Is it to late? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If only OP could spell "too late"...or is he suggesting that he also needs to undergo this procedure?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  3. Oh sweet by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I am seriously looking forward to Battle Angel Nana!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Oh sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle Angel Anal?

  4. It has begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how much is it going to cost to get a super-baby in the next, say, ten years?

    Captcha: normalcy

    1. Re:It has begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      10 years? This guy did it now, in his own little private lab. What makes you think others can't do it right now?
      As we speak dozens of researchers with low morals are planning their billionaire futures. CRISPR is extremely powerfull and very accessible at the same time.

  5. I Want That by mentil · · Score: 0

    If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation? Does it increase metabolism too much or something? Perhaps stroke resistance is considered a downside, in societies where elderly are a drain on resources.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:I Want That by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, for one thing, HIV resistance has only been useful since the 70s.

    2. Re:I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also, relatively higher human intelligence is not selected-for. Once one gets a bit above average intelligence (for either gender), the smarter one is, the less likely one is to breed.

      So, a gene that keeps one's intelligence limited to normal levels will have a selective advantage.

    3. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So , you are telling us that you are smart because you never got laid?

    4. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're definitely not smart, so that answers your question.

    5. Re:I Want That by quenda · · Score: 1

      higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?

      Intelligence is negatively correlated to fertility. Have you not seen Idiocracy?

    6. Re:I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... plenty of younger aged people have suffered from unfortunate strokes too, not just the elderly.

    7. Re:I Want That by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      where elderly are a drain on resources.
      They are only a drain on resources, if they have a stroke.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:I Want That by blindseer · · Score: 1

      If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?

      Because it's a fairly recent mutation, on evolutionary scales, and it takes a long time to propagate even when there's a selection advantage against an infectious disease. The Wikipedia article on the gene gives a bit on this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It also sounds like the advantage to intelligence is subtle. There was also not much of an intelligence advantage when much of human society consisted of subsistence farmers. Someone that had an education from those in walking distance, with few able to read, with superstition often being the norm than any real science, and generally a difficult life, there wasn't much to gain from being smarter than the average bear.

      It seems that also there is an advantage with having only one of the genes. It might not be as effective against infection or grant as much of an intelligence boost but there is still an advantage. This will slow propagation as they still carry a gene without this CCR5 deletion.

      Also, think of a possible heterozygous advantage such as with sickle cell trait. Sickle cell trait is "good" for heterozygous people as the reduction in oxygen flow is minimal, but carries a tolerance for malaria. Homozygous people for sickle cell trait can have a painful and short life without modern medical care. Lacking the sickle trait means nearly certain death where malaria is prevalent, again unless given access to modern medical care. The CCR5 deletion may be advantageous to a point but leave someone vulnerable in another way.

      If there is any disadvantage to the CCR5 deletion then it might soon be considered a disease like sickle cell trait is today. Modern medicine has rendered HIV a chronic condition, much like sickle cell trait. It's not a death sentence any more. It's expensive to treat but very survivable. We don't need this gene to survive HIV. If there is any downside to it then that would explain it's slow propagation.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not getting laid that's the problem. If you're intelligent enough you wont find that much of a problem. It's that we tend not to have 8 or more kids.

    10. Re:I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It helped people survive the plague way before the 70ies

    11. Re:I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?

      If I recall correctly it used to be much more common, but it was a choice between HIV resistance or black plague resistance and there was a time when resistance against the latter was more favorable.

    12. Re: I Want That by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      We smart ones can tell the difference between getting laid and breeding.

      Mostly because we don't believe in ridiculous nonsense that keeps us from using means to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:I Want That by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      And also, relatively higher human intelligence is not selected-for. Once one gets a bit above average intelligence (for either gender), the smarter one is, the less likely one is to breed.

      So, a gene that keeps one's intelligence limited to normal levels will have a selective advantage.

      Ok, but while that may be the case for the past few generations, it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years of human evolution, higher intelligence has been a good thing. It's what got us to the top of the food chain.

    14. Re:I Want That by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Do you mean, if it's useful why haven't we all evolved to have it? You do know that evolution doesn't work that way, right?

    15. Re:I Want That by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe because natural selection only favors variations which provide an advantage in reproductive success.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    16. Re:I Want That by vovin · · Score: 1

      I read it thus:

      He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells

      and

      a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke

      So the end result is no CCR5 == no HIV == not smarter.
      If you can't get HIV because you don't have CCR5 you also don't have the 'smart' gene ...

    17. Re:I Want That by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And it's quickly becoming unuseful given our current ability to treat the disease.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    18. Re:I Want That by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.

      The alteration (deleting the CCR5 gene) makes mice smarter. Not the gene itself.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    19. Re:I Want That by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Maybe because natural selection only favors variations which provide an advantage in reproductive success.

      Of the group or tribe. Examples that seem counter-productive at first look include having some non-breeders to help with raising children or some being willing to self-sacrifice to protect the group/tribe.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart people don't like the common downsides to getting laid. Such as having to split your attention between a child and a career. Having an abusive (or completely worthless) partner. Etc.

      So ya, smart people are less likely to end up with such entanglements. They may like the idea if they can avoid a lot of the downsides, but that can be difficult.

    21. Re:I Want That by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation? Does it increase metabolism too much or something? Perhaps stroke resistance is considered a downside, in societies where elderly are a drain on resources.

      It's not that we don't want that. It's that we are no where close to being smart enough to go tinkering just because of situations like this. Unforeseen consequences. In this case the kids may have lucked out (although even that isn't certain yet) but in the future others may not be so lucky. We just don't know enough about our own genetics to start tinkering with them yet. Maybe in the future sure. But it's going to be a long time before we are really knowledgeable enough to start doing it responsibly. Keep in mind that these changes won't just affect the children they are done to, they can also propagate down their line in their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. We could accidentally introduce some new genetic disorder that may not even show itself until several generations later.

      Think of it this way, imagine you and a team of brilliant software developers wrote a program that runs a giant company. It does everything from manufacturing control to payroll to HVAC. It even runs the automatic flusher on the toilets. Literally every function of the company relies on it.

      Now imagine the company decided they want to make some changes to it, but you and your team have moved on so they hire some bright-eyed college grads to do it. Oh, and they don't have the source code or any documentation, so the kids need to study it in place and can only modify it using assembly language. And you can't really test it without pushing changes to the production system. How many unexpected disasters do you imagine would result from that? That's the stage we are at right now with genetic editing.



      And no, this isn't some kind of argument for intelligent design, it's just an analogy.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    22. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have that backwards. Procreation is the main intended effect of fucking. You want the side effects (pleasure) without the main effect.

    23. Re:I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIV infection causing AIDS does not require the CCR5 gene, nor does it require T cells to express CCR5 receptors. There are mutations of the HIV virus that can utilize CCR5 receptors in order to rapidly progress from infection with HIV to AIDS. Suppression (nor absence) of CCR5 receptors does not prevent the progression of HIV infection to AIDS.

      If there were a genetic solution that prevented the progression of HIV infection to AIDS, all that is required is to ensure that all babies are infected with HIV and that any displaying symptoms are permitted to die before breeding. In rather short order the genetic variations required to prevent the progression of HIV to AIDS before breeding will manifest in all survivors, it much the same manner as the genetic predisposition for using cholesterol for vessel repair was selected in the general population.

    24. Re:I Want That by mentil · · Score: 1

      In this case, deleting the gene increases intelligence... which raises the question of why the gene spread so far. If it were the opposite I'd agree with you.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    25. Re: I Want That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that pleasure happens every time (with obvious exceptions) and conception is actually really, really difficult for many couples, to the point where they need doctors and clinics and drugs and books and tight scheduling to procreate, I'd argue that you have it backwards.

      You'd be surprised how lucky people are when they manage to pull it off.

    26. Re:I Want That by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Again, I think that's a misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. It's not like genes are simply advantageous and disadvantageous, and advantageous genes are spread and disadvantageous genes die out. Genes might have multiple effects which might be advantageous or disadvantageous based on the environment the organism finds itself in.

      But also, being advantageous or disadvantageous isn't by itself the issue. It had to be advantageous enough to increase your chances of surviving long enough to reproduce, or disadvantageous enough to decrease you chances of surviving long enough to reproduce. If it's just sort of theoretically disadvantageous to the human race in general, but you can still live to maturity and have offspring, and that gene will still get passed on. Evolution does not refine people to the point of perfection, it merely to the point of enabling procreation.

    27. Re:I Want That by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book talking about that very scenario and pointing out how the individual gene is the "actor" of evolution, not the group or tribe.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  6. Cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did anyone really believe the AIDS story? This is China here. The gene just-so-happens to be cognitive boosting was not a happy accident.

    Look at what they do to their Olympic athletes. Of course they will attempt to do the same to their future Han-Ubermensch students.

    1. Re:Cover story by blindseer · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did anyone really believe the AIDS story? This is China here. The gene just-so-happens to be cognitive boosting was not a happy accident.

      I don't know, I'd think immunity from HIV and similar infections is enough to experiment with this. Maybe they fear biological warfare from those already immune in the West. This immunity was already seen in Germany, likely a happy accident from all the plagues that swept through Europe from its long history of wars and international trade. 10% of Europeans carry this trait but outside of Europe it's rare as hen's teeth. Or maybe not biological warfare but the costs to their nation if they must fight an outbreak where no one has a natural resistance.

      Then again maybe they are playing a long game here. With gene editing and natural propagation then maybe they can make a large part of overpopulated China immune. Then they can thin their population of too many mouths to feed, wage biological warfare on the rest of the world, and come out on top for generations after.

      This is all assuming that there is some grand conspiracy here and not just a handful of people that want to get their names in the history books.

      People must also know that the chances of getting HIV by a heterosexual that does not use injections of illegal drugs is as close to zero as statistical analysis will allow. Now that blood donations are screened for HIV there's no longer the risks that there used to be from that. Keep homosexuals and drug abusers from donating blood and we will all be quite safe from this disease.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would not be surprised at all (horrified, yes, but 'surprised'?, no.) if there were hundreds of bodies (if not more) incinerated by the chinese government that proceeded the two (alive ones) that they did go public with. and who knows how many others like these there are that they're keeping secret.

    3. Re:Cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be retarded.

      Before people knew what HIV was, they claimed blood transfusions were safe as well, right? You only know what you know, and right now we screen for things in a completely reactive fashion.

      Secondly, stopping people from donating blood just means you get less blood.

      Lastly, HIV doesn't give a shit if you like it in the butt or if you're a junkie. Are those infection pathways? Yes. Are they assurances to avoid said infections? No. And the simple answer is both obvious and correct: If fucking people is like a time-frozen graph, then you can get HIV trivially along the branches of the people whom you've had sex with. In other words, you fucked someone who fucked someone who used an IV drug -- despite being 100% hetereo or whatever your definition is, you still got infected. It happens.

    4. Re:Cover story by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Who is "they"? The Chinese government? The government shut this guy down and are now prosecuting him.

      As for it being a gay thing, actually most HIV/AIDS infections from sex involve opposite sex couples. In the US it's about 85% same sex couples, but globally it's mostly due to heterosexual intercourse and mostly in poorer countries where education, access to condoms and access to medication are limited.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Cover story by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hmm, another troll mod. A homophobic mod perhaps, triggered by suggesting that AIDS isn't just a gay thing?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Cover story by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      People must also know that the chances of getting HIV by a heterosexual that does not use injections of illegal drugs is as close to zero as statistical analysis will allow

      No, just no.

      Do some research

    7. Re:Cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIV is and isn't a "gay thing". First, it's much more common among gay men than gay women. Among those men, the bottoms catch it more than the tops. It's really all about anal sex, not sexuality. The ass has much less natural immune defenses against HIV compared to the mouth or the vagina. Women who can't get enough buttsex are at just as much risk as gay dudes who prefer catching over pitching.

      It also doesn't help that condoms are never tested for anal sex. Read the little info package that comes with your condoms if you don't believe me. Nearly every brand covers their asses by saying it wasn't tested for anyone else's asses. Therefore, condom failure is much more common among gay men who try to be safe.

      I have no idea what you're saying with regards to opposite sex couples being more at risk, though. That simply isn't true[1]. Vectors determine everything. Buttsex is just less safe, but it's literally the only option besides a blowjob for gay men. Homosexuals *DO* have more HIV in their population compared to heterosexuals, and it *IS* easier for them to catch, but all of that is only incidentally related and has nothing to do with their sexuality.

      As anal sex becomes more acceptable among women, the numbers will begin to even out. Remember, back in the '70s you couldn't even get blowjobs from women unless they were in university. They were the only ones intelligent enough to even consider sucking a dick, all other women were too fucking scared stupid to give it a shot, thinking it made them "dirty" or such nonsense. Nowadays, it's unheard of for a woman to be adverse to sucking dick. A lot of them are still butt-shy, but less and less as time goes on.

      [1]http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/hivaids/charact_epidemic.aspx

  7. Do the ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's not a popular opinion but I think the ends justify the means when it comes to genes. The better we become with Gene editing, the better for the progress of the human race. The human race has escaped darwinism because we have an over abundance resources given to the stupid people. If we don't do this, idiocracy is our future.

  8. So a guy working outside ethical guidlines by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    gets into a bunch of shit because he's working outside of ethical guidelines (btw,it's China), publishes his results and gets roundly castigated (Oh yeah, I think he got arrested. In China. For ethical somethings. In China). Nothing else matters. Dude got arrested in China for ethics. Nuff said.

    What are the odds are he did something right, even though people who know much more than me say he's full of shit? I'm guessing pretty low.

    1. Re:So a guy working outside ethical guidlines by jred · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how China works, but I'd be honestly surprised if they weren't arrested by the army. I foresee a clone army of genetically modified soldiers in the future.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    2. Re:So a guy working outside ethical guidlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't rape and transmit HIV to the populations they want to exterminate if they're immune to HIV. Also higher intelligence doesn't really help you in China.

    3. Re:So a guy working outside ethical guidlines by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Getting arrested for ethics in China is like getting demonetized for comments on YouTube. Neither one actually gives a shit, it's only about optics like Facebook's supposed concern for privacy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Eugenics War when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khan supports CRISPER

  10. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say stop with fake concern for life and alarmism and go for it. Plenty of people naturally born have serious mental illness, tons more are low functioning. On top of that abortion is legal. If parents want to participate in gene editing for their children let them, the benefits could elevate the entire human race, the risks only effect one person at a time.

    1. Re: Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took some time for humanity to build morality around and implement ban on incest. Here we enter again the unknown which does not need to be novelty. Ignorance against instinct is not a good decission field for an individual. For a nation its a question of ability to extinct problematic outcome as THEY appear. Here comes the politics, and some countries have conflict of interest because they serve you, others donâ(TM)t.

    2. Re:Whatever by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 0

      I also believe in the potential of gene editing, it seems the only way of humane eugenics. There are indeed many undesirable/defective people (such as ones having ADHD, schizophrenia, autism spectrum, cystic fibrosis, down syndrome, etc) which are burden to our society, no matter how insulting it would sound. But genome editing is still in its infancy and any error or mistake can be very catastrophic, that's why we must still be very cautious.

    3. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't insightful, it's full on fucking Nazism. There are plenty of people who, despite not working as everyone else thinks they should who have made significant contributions to our society, particularly within science.

      It's fuckwads like you who needs to be exterminated, not people with various neurological disorders.

    4. Re:Whatever by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people who, despite not working as everyone else thinks they should who have made significant contributions to our society, particularly within science..

      Maybe I was too harsh. As a person with neurodevelopmental disorder I didn't say that disabled people can't have any talents. There is just no scientific evidence that people with quite serious neurobiological developmental disorders have much more chance to be gifted or have any other significant advantage. For most of us it's just a curse which makes lives harder with no other significant advantage. It's like to win a lottery at best, 99.9999% only lose.

      This isn't insightful, it's full on fucking Nazism.

      How is, for instance, minimizing the risk of an unborn child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder via gene therapy is Nazism? Parents just want healthy and happy children, not a cursed and, most likely, failed "geniuses".

      It's fuckwads like you who needs to be exterminated, not people with various neurological disorders.

      Yeah, ironically being one of these people I'm becoming more and more convinced that it would be better for the humanity to firstly detect and abort irrational people like you.

    5. Re:Whatever by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's complex. Seems the same gene combination that causes people to get AIDS gives immunity to the black death. There's also sickle cell anemia that protects against malaria.
      Your other "undesirable traits" are just as likely to give advantages in some situations and situations change. New diseases, need for certain types of intelligence, needs for certain types of warriors are possibilities.
      We have enough experience in husbandry, agriculture etc that while mono-culture has advantages, it also has large weaknesses compared to genetic diversity.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Whatever by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Humanity evolved to AFFORD individual "catastrophes".

      Failures die sooner than successes, but everyone dies which makes our species adaptable. We view death as bad because evolution selected for that viewpoint. That's not necessarily rational as our ability to direct our own evolution improves.

      If there is a problem, abort the problem. If the problem manifests later then study and treat if practical. If not the host may die sooner than otherwise, but to the species that's no loss.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Whatever by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1
      I'm aware of the "heterozygote advantage" phenomenon but this doesn't mean that some people should suffer because they "won" a bad combination of genes. The problem is if parents' child has high genetic susceptibility to ADHD, autism, schizophrenia or diabetes no sane parent would choose their child's suffering for potential adaptation to other (including unrealistic) environments.

      Your other "undesirable traits" are just as likely to give advantages in some situations and situations change. New diseases, need for certain types of intelligence, needs for certain types of warriors are possibilities.

      Modern civilization and, especially, medicine almost eliminated natural selection, so harmful mutations will slowly but steadily accumulate in human populations if we won't prevent this with gene therapy. We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?

    8. Re:Whatever by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?

      I have no idea, the future is an unknown, but is likely to be surprising, and that surprise might not be good. Nuclear war is an extreme example of the possibilities that would change everything.
      While you make a point about parents, the problem is if the State or even just heavy peer pressure forces these things on everyone.
      Modern civilization is also not everywhere, so different selection pressures exist.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is, for instance, minimizing the risk of an unborn child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder via gene therapy is Nazism?

      I don't think it is, personally, but speaking as a person with autistic spectrum disorder on the high-functioning end of the spectrum, we definitely have to be VERY careful about "curing" autism.

      For those on the low-functioning end of the spectrum, they could certainly use some help, I'm not gonna deny that. However, on the high-functioning side of the spectrum, autism has incredible, stark advantages in some areas where we can run circles around neurotypicals. Many of humanity's greatest achievements, breakthroughs, discoveries and inventions are thanks to people on the autistic spectrum who are high-functioning enough to interact with their peers and hold careers in important positions of research.

      If autism, both high and low functioning, are both on the same gene, and we eliminate that, imagine the impact on science if we lose all of our autistic geniuses. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    10. Re:Whatever by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      If high functioning autism was that good it would be much more widespread in human populations, but what we see in reality, they're minority and the outcomes are more adverse in average. ASD/ADHD might predispose the person to certain professions (since they lack in many other areas) but the widespread mantra of disabled peoples' high predisposition to unusual talents or even genius is somewhat exaggerated and quite dangerous. Most disabled people are just disabled people, no more, period.

  11. re: no evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.

    In this case, even an appearance of impropriety means he will never work as a scientist again.
    The "no evidence" part only makes any difference on how long he will spend in prison.

  12. That's impossible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was reliably informed by slashdotters that genetics play no part in intelligence.

    1. Re:That's impossible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really need a "Shots Fired" mod on this site. Well played!

  13. Re:They must be purged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dalek-like typing detected...

  14. You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Politicians are not stupid. They are disloyal. They seem stupid because they say they want one thing, and then put in plans that don't accomplish that thing. This is malice, not stupidity, at work.

    Their public debates don't happen so they can convince each other of a damned thing. They do that to convince the masses to vote for them. Doing this, of course, requires that they make impossible promises. They are perfectly content to let everyone think they are stupid, because it allows them to get away with it.

    Wake up, dude.

    1. Re:You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh, a lot of them are disloyal, no doubts about that.

      But don't kid yourself - people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Louis Gohmert and Donald Trump prove beyond doubt that plenty of them are also stupid as a crate of rocks.

    2. Re:You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't kid YOURSELF.

      You think it is easy to achieve the kind of political power they have? Every person you listed is a genius when it comes to deceit, public manipulation, and playing the game of politics. They are WAY better at than the overwhelming majority of the population.

      They have to be. They are perpetually surrounded by people who want to take that power from them. They had to fight to get it, and they won.

      They didn't win by being stupid.

    3. Re:You are part of the problem. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's not fair to rocks, at least they have millions of years of experience.

    4. Re:You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hank Johnson was worried that Guam would tip over and capsize.
      The entire island.

      Some politicians are really are just stupid.

    5. Re:You are part of the problem. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      In a forum where disloyal cunning and stupidity are indistinguishable, it's also possible that a bunch of the truly stupid will attract more votes than the disloyals. I suppose it's up to the smart funders to make sure that their support only goes to the smart 'stupid' candidates - rather than the real thing. To the extent that it matters to them...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    6. Re: You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kid yourself buddy.

      In games and life there are 'dice rolls'. If you have a set of good rolls, you can throttle the opposition regardless of how good your plan is vs how good their plan is. Simply watch any game or a confrontation between two people IRL.

      Of course, generally speaking, plans, work, etc are useful. But if the rolls are bad enough, it won't matter and if the rolls are good enough, it won't matter either.

    7. Re:You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan, you are a god damn russian troll planted to agitate for that soulless faggot putin

  15. Re: Yes... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Re-read TFS. It is the absence of the gene which confers immunity, not the presence of it.

  16. ETHICS? In CHINA? Are you HIGH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got arrested for breaking Chinese imperial ChiCom decrees. It has nothing to do with ethics lol. Seriously, ETHICS, in CHINA? Get a clue.

  17. Here is why. by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We do not yet know *every single exact* effect the modification of this gene will do to a human being outside of a lab.

    That is the reason why. No data = big problem.

    Modern science is inherently cautious... The bonafide "mad scientist" He Jiankui, decided to say "F*** the ethical standards!" and went ahead and made it happen without any standard regulatory oversight.

    From what I've seen, various scientific agencies of different countries have been trying hard to keep the CRISPR genie inside the bag... Dr. He Jiankui opened the bag wide open.

    1. Re:Here is why. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't know how to modify the genome to enhance intelligence. The article doesn't even present evidence that it was enhanced, it could have just as easily be reduced.

      We don't entirely understand what intelligence is, we understand the genome even less, and modifying the genome to enhance intelligence is basically impossible at this point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Here is why. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's an ethical dilemma. You have the ability to cure one serious disease, but you can't be sure it won't have side-effects, medical and social.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the important point here. It showed increased intelligence in mice, not humans. If I recall, this gene was discovered in a group of prostitutes. If you read up on the history of that group of prostitutes, you don't get the feeling they were doing it because they were all so clever on how to make money, it seemed more out of desperation.

    4. Re:Here is why. by bigpat · · Score: 1

      We do not yet know *every single exact* effect the modification of this gene will do to a human being outside of a lab.

      That is the reason why. No data = big problem.

      Which is why gene editing should take a cautious approach... but it should proceed similarly to a drug trials and it should meet similar standards at least initially. There should be some demonstrated need. Immunity from disease would be one of those benefits that meets that threshold like any vaccine would. Also such studies should be subject to longer term study so we don't mess up our species genome inadvertently in some widespread manner, but I would also say that drug treatments should receive the same longer term scrutiny to make sure the negatives aren't just slow to emerge.

      And if you take a twenty to forty year approach where a small group study is followed from birth to adulthood then that would seem to me to be an appropriate approach.

      The point is that a blanket prohibition can't and shouldn't work because it makes no distinction between harm and benefits. And even overly onerous regulations are going to leave a huge black market for this and create a more dangerous situation overall just as the current FDA drug system creates a huge black market for pain killing drugs by making them too expensive and forcing them into a black market.

      People are going to want things like this for their children. A good set of regulations should separate the fraudulent claims from the real benefits of such treatments. I don't want my kids or grandchildren to get HIV. A long lasting vaccine would be great, but a permanent gene editing to prevent this disease for life and generations to come (which has been validated in a clinical trial) is much better.

    5. Re:Here is why. by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      People keep talking about unintended consequences, but there's no guarantee that children conceived the natural way won't end up with some genetic issue that we didn't foresee.

      In fact, we allow people with known genetic problems to have children. People with hereditary hearing loss or blindness are allowed to reproduce and take the chance that their child will inherit the condition.

      How are the risks of unintended consequences from genetic engineering any different? Why shouldn't people be allowed to take the risk if it could mean their child can't catch some terrible disease, or will live a longer life or be more intelligent than their peers?

    6. Re: Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be true... however... he will have advanced science far more than anyone else in this area, sacrificing himself to accelerate the process reduced to years of which normally would have taken decades. The amount of information gleaned from these twins will be invaluable.

    7. Re:Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, we allow people with known genetic problems to have children. People with hereditary hearing loss or blindness are allowed to reproduce and take the chance that their child will inherit the condition.

      And in the deaf community, it's often celebrated to have deaf children instead of hearing children.

    8. Re:Here is why. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons this is banned in most nations is that when CRISPR snips out a chunk of DNA or cuts something in they don't fully understand the mechanism of how the cells will put it back together. There is a VERY high possibility that this will result in significant mutations and disruptions as the cells machinery tries to reassemble the CRISPR'd DNA.

      These kids could end up with life ending mutations due to the CRISPR edits. It's only been in the last few months that they've found a way to better control the reassembly after CRISPR has done it's thing and nothing is certain, there is a lot of work going into this but we're a long way away from being able to reliably edit DNA in humans.

    9. Re:Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A position I strongly disagree with. Cochlear implants will cure a baby's deafness, yet many deaf parents of deaf children refuse to have their children cured.

      Since this topic is about HIV, I see it as no different than an HIV positive mother refusing to have her baby put on vertical transmission prevention drugs, just so it can grow up to be a part of a "culture" (whatever the fuck that means) and fully appreciate the struggle of living with HIV.

      There is no benefit to being deaf, and there is no benefit to being HIV positive. And no, speaking sign and going to light shows isn't a benefit, they're things the hearing can do as well, we just don't fucking care for the most part, unless we're learning tactical sign language like in the military or SWAT.

      Full disclosure, I'm not deaf, but I am HIV positive. I wouldn't wish it on anybody, the least of which my own children. Even though I'm very healthy (my T-cells are above 1300, five years into it), my treatment is amazing, my drugs have very few side effects and it's impossible for me to sexually transmit my disease due to my low viral load count, the stigma and the public ignorance alone is enough bullshit to deal with on a daily basis.

      I do hope that this treatment becomes available to everyone, because HIV sucks and our society at large could certainly use an intelligence boost. Just look around you, holy shit are we ever getting dumber, even to the point of celebrating it. All that said, though, I want this treatment to be studied very, very carefully. Work out the bugs, find out worst of the side effects, then deploy it if it is deemed safe through rigorous scientific oversight.

      I approached my doctor about modifying my CCR5 genes when I first heard about this and he refused, saying that we just don't know enough yet to know if it's actually safe. In his words, "I could cure your HIV with this, but I don't know if I'd be altering your genes to the point where the common cold or Zika or something else non-lethal will suddenly be able to kill you. That would defeat the purpose of what we're doing now, to stop your disease from progressing to the point where you're that vulnerable."

  18. They will be purged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the "doctor" too.

  19. Re: No (not the case)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Of course youâ(TM)re polish - you love hosts files and screen doors on submarines, you say you have the gene and then say you donâ(TM)t have it, you babble idiocy constantly, and you write idiot essays nobody reads.

  20. Magic always comes with a price by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Interesting, but what's the downside of the 'enhancements' done to these children? Likely we won't know until they're in their adult years (if they live that long).

    1. Re:Magic always comes with a price by sheramil · · Score: 2

      There's a short story by Greg Bear called "Sisters", about a society where gene enhancement of children is common. The modified offspring are smarter and more mediagenic, but in the story it's found that some of them are also subject to sudden attacks of clonic spasms followed by death, due to an unforeseen error. Chilling stuff, if you have children of your own.

    2. Re: Magic always comes with a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, the price of greater HIV resistance came with reduced resistance to the flu. Considering how often one gets the flu compared to HUV, this may not have been a great tradeoff.
      To say nothing of how these girls are likely to live sheltered lives under constant monitoring from scientists. They may not even be allowed to have children, or at least in normal circumstances.

    3. Re:Magic always comes with a price by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.

      In your example, it might be a good idea to create hermetic test environments within which you can deterministically reproduce those rare occurrences and study them in depth.

    4. Re: Magic always comes with a price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, the meme of the future will be "fuck her only if she's sneezing".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Magic always comes with a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to verify Rule 34 for you.

    6. Re:Magic always comes with a price by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yours is basically the same point I've made in the past about things like GMO crops -- and been consistently shouted down for, as 'spreading FUD' or 'being a Luddite', or similar nonsense allegations. I of course agree wholeheartedly with you. However in the case of GMO foods, I gave up protesting, because The Horse Has Already Left The Barn; they're literally 'in the wind' now; any negative consequences of them are inevitable, we'll just have to wait and see what (if anything) happens. So it goes with 'GMO babies', if countries like China or whoever keeps screwing around with that. Our species is like 12-year-olds playing around with nuclear reactors, when it comes to some things. For all anyone knows hacking our own genes could create any number of unforseen side effects, and we might not know for a dozen generations, after it's so thoroughly propagated through the population that it becomes a global emergency. Guess we wait and see, nothing else to do about it now.

    7. Re:Magic always comes with a price by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.

      That last bit is where people have an ethical problem. You can't unit test a human. You can only integration test a human. And you go through a lot of humans that way. Josef Mengele would be fine with such things. The rest of us aren't.

    8. Re:Magic always comes with a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO babies

      The real question is, will "organic" babies cost more to adopt, but have the advantage of tasting better?

    9. Re:Magic always comes with a price by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You can certainly test a patch of skin or a section of an intestine. I think most people are fine with testing up to the organ level with the exception of a brain.

  21. i, for one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    do not welcome our new genetically-enhanced chinese overlords.

  22. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The chances of a single gene mod inadvertently helping cognition are less than a random mod of the pistons in your car helping engine performance. That is, about a million to one. Lots to go wrong, very little to "make right" for most of us. The sad part is that we'll never know whether any cognitive improvement (or degradation (not to mention mental health)) is due to the enormous scrutiny they'll be under for the rest of their life or due to some real effects of the mod. Call it the observer effect writ large. The only likely 'smoking gun' will be between some (biochemical) pathology they both display. Lots to go wrong.

  23. MRA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Thought experiment: If you have girls with genetically-enhanced intelligence, will the Slashdot MRAs still expect them to go make a sandwich?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck do girls or intelligence have to do with slashdot? Go make me a sammich.

    2. Re:MRA by sheramil · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they do, it'll be the best god damned sandwich you will ever taste.

    3. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PopeRatzo's obviously never had a girl make him a sandwich. You're missing out, man.

    4. Re:MRA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      PopeRatzo's obviously never had a girl make him a sandwich. You're missing out, man.

      I've had two girls make me a bologna sandwich. I was the bologna.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:MRA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If they do, it'll be the best god damned sandwich you will ever taste.

      Or, it will be poisoned, if their intelligence was really genetically enhanced.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust PopeRatzo to always get in a shit or a piss.

    7. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ostensibly an adult. Act like one. You are genuinely making the world a worse place in ways that harm the values you seem to hold.

    8. Re:MRA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You are ostensibly an adult. Act like one. You are genuinely making the world a worse place in ways that harm the values you seem to hold.

      Oh, fuck right off. You politically correct liberals make me want to puke.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect you're not a real pope, unless by girls you mean underage boys.

    10. Re:MRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just assume their gender? PIG!

      (More-importantly, did you check for adam's apples?)

  24. so goes life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    evolution only works through accidents.

  25. Twins are girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  26. This is how super villains get created! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should watch out for them in 20 years or so!

  27. Hubris always comes with a price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humanity's hubris score takes a giant leap forward enabling us to do whatever we want under the guise of progress. Or in this case "won't someone think of the children"?

  28. "There is no evidence that He actually set out to" by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    So they are treating this guy like God now.

  29. The first phase of the china super soldier project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that we have super intelligence, we next need to work on those pecks....

  30. Bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a bigger butt,

  31. Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened by DanDD · · Score: 1

    Health and Life insurance rates based on the presence of good and bad genes.

    Highly competitive jobs and university programs only open to those with specific genes.

    People with certain genes and abilities have their career paths chosen for them, and are forced to work for the state.

    The presence of genes that contribute to violent behavior will be enough to push a jury towards an otherwise questionable verdict.

    CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    1. Re:Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened by djinn6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.

      Depends on how it's implemented. This could be a state-run program that provides everyone the same set of enhancements. CRISPR made its mark in biotech for being relatively cheap so it wouldn't even cost all that much. Though given how much push back there is for mandatory vaccines, I imagine GM babies will spur even more conspiracies.

    2. Re:Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened by DanDD · · Score: 1

      I agree - gene edited humans could be a great benefit overall. But can you imagine some religious group eschewing all technology, living in isolation for generations, and how they'd fare in a world full of gene-enhanced humans? If hey're able to exist safely and humanely, then all the more power to them. But what happens if such groups becomes wards of the state because they have no chance of functioning in a modern society. Are they pets? Or do they become Eloi?

      Humanities record of human rights for those deemed 'lesser' isn't exactly stellar. Then again, my dog has been selectively bred to be a loyal servant, and he likes it that way. Or at least that's what I like to tell myself...

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    3. Re:Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Yeah if all of society is gene edited except for one backward group and then that backward group gets a mad scientist to create a lethal virus which affects the gene edited, all we will be left with is a backward group who wont be able to maintain modern civilization and then we are back to the stone age.
      Genetic diversity has its uses

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    4. Re:Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though given how much push back there is for mandatory vaccines, I imagine GM babies will spur even more conspiracies.

      GMO babies have longer shelf life. They're not as delicious as heritage babies though.

  32. Missed the opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of a real twin study by zapping only one of the twins. Of course if it was actually just another Chinese "scientific" con job, you wouldn't expect any real science to happen anyway.

  33. Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The CCR5-delta32 mutation doesn't provide absolute immunity to HIV... it just provides immunity to somewhere between 86 and 94% of HIV strains documented to exist "in the wild". Think of CCR5 as being like a T-cell's docking port for HIV (or alternatively, its identification beacon). Without the CCR5 gene, most HIV virions are either metaphorically unable to "grab on" and "dock" (to infect the T-cell), or are unable to even recognize it as an infectable cell in the first place.

    Everyone has two copies of the CCR5 gene. If one copy has the delta-32 mutation, the person isn't immune at all to HIV... but could conceivably survive for a very, very long time after a short (but intense) primary infection. Basically, 50% of the person's T-cells express the gene, and 50% don't. After infection, half are infected and killed, but the remainder are primarily the nearly-uninfectable half. This is why, back in the late 80s and 1990s, there were a small -- but noteworthy -- cohort of HIV+ individuals who didn't progress beyond a certain point to AIDS.

    Also, a CCR5-delta32 mutation isn't quite a "get out of jail free" card. People with the mutation, especially a heterozygous (2-copy) mutation, are ultra-vulnerable to respiratory illness. Therein lies another part of the late-80s/early-90s original HIV mystery... people with strong immune systems were easily infected, but people who'd been sick with one illness or another from the moment they were born seemed to be nearly immune to HIV. That's why... they WERE, and their life-long endless sequence of respiratory infections were the biggest drawback.

    It's also important to note that late in an advanced HIV infection, HIV undergoes a mutation of its own that allows it to infect cells regardless of CCR5 deletion. The main defense against such mutated HIV is the fact that the same mutation that allows HIV to infect cells with a CCR5-delta32 mutation ALSO makes it less-capable of infecting a new host. The good news is that even the mutated HIV is readily-susceptible to modern HIV meds (and in fact, is generally EASIER to bring under control because the mutated virus itself is less robust and virulent).

    Observations comparing this to sickle-cell anemia are apt. Back before effective HIV meds existed, having one or two copies of CCR5 with a delta-32 mutation could mean the difference between living long enough for real treatments to become available, and dying a horrible death within a few months or years. Nowadays, having one mutated copy is almost purely a drawback... a lifetime of respiratory infections, with benefits that are largely moot thanks to the effectiveness of modern HIV meds (which, for all intents and purposes, ARE a cure for "AIDS", even if they aren't literally a cure for "HIV").

    Having two copies is somewhat of a bonus if you're otherwise at high risk for HIV infection... but once again, modern meds have largely negated THIS scenario too. If you take Truvada daily (Google: "PrEP"), your likelihood of catching HIV is practically nonexistent. In roughly 5 years, fewer than a half-dozen people worldwide who have been confirmed to have actually taken Truvada reliably have become infected... and AFAIK, all of those cases involved sex with someone who had a fairly advanced case of untreated full-blown AIDS. Putting it into perspective, you'd almost have to be willfully-indifferent and have LITERALLY no standards for whom you'll have sex with, because CCR5-mutated HIV is among the MOST susceptible to HIV meds(*).

    ---

    Warning: very non politically-correct example with WAY too much information follows:

    (*) Putting it less-delicately, you'd have to be a total manwhore-pig-cum-dump who likes being blindfolded, tied up, and and indiscriminately taking anonymous loads from random strangers that include crazy homeless people who are visibly ill. We aren't talking "active sex life" here, we're talking "complete abdication of anything that resembles common sense and/or having any standards WHATSOEVER". I think one of the confirmed cases admitted that he collected semen from several dozen guys with high viral loads, then gave himself an enema with it. Put another way... if you repeatedly taunt an angry pitbull, eventually you're going to slip on his dogshit and earn a Darwin Award.

    1. Re:Some pedantic details by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Who exactly is Truveda marketed towards? I feel like taking a daily prescription medication to avoid a disease is a pretty onerous requirement and would only appeal to a very small subset of very high-risk people.

    2. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in a stable relationship with someone infected.

    3. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIV negative people in relationships with HIV positive people.

    4. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Truvada is arguably one of the most tame prescription drugs in history. Compared to birth control pills for women, it's practically devoid of meaningful side effects that are even noticeable, let alone enough to motivate someone to discontinue taking it.

      The ability of antiviral meds to prevent HIV infection when taken prior to exposure has been known for decades... it's just that prior to the development of Lamivudine, HIV meds were HORRIBLE to take (diarrhea, rigid dosing schedule, dietary restrictions, refrigeration... the works), and taking them was itself practically a full-time job. Lamivudine was the first HIV med that had no real side effects. The problem was, it was discovered before anyone seriously considered combining multiple drugs... and if someone with HIV takes ONLY Lamivudine, their HIV can develop resistance to it in less than 8 weeks. The fundamental problem with using Lamivudine alone for PrEP is the fact that resistance to Lamivudine monotherapy develops SO QUICKLY, someone who managed to get infected while taking it could develop resistance to it before they even had consistently-detectable HIV antibodies.

      A few years later, Tenofovir came out as the second HIV antiviral that had few/no side effects. By the time TFV came out, the need for multi-drug therapy was well known. By the early 2000s, most HIV therapy consisted of Tenofovir, either Lamivudine or Emtricitabine (two drugs that are basically equivalent... Lamivudine metabolizes into Emtricitabine), and a third drug (initially protease inhibitors, later the so-called 'integrase inhibitors'). The main resistance to promoting Truvada for PrEP back then was concern that someone who didn't take it reliably & became infected would likely end up with resistance to both drugs & would find themselves with HIV and two of the best-available and most-tolerable meds rendered useless. Plus, since PrEP wasn't officially FDA-approved, health insurance wouldn't cover it (least of all pre-Obamacare health insurance), and VERY few people could afford to cough up $2,000/month for a drug that's purely preventative.

      Things changed around 2010, due to multiple factors. Gilead's patents on Truvada and its two component drugs were nearing their expirations, and the rate of new HIV infections in the US was plummeting anyway (as more and more people with HIV began treating it, the amount of HIV in their blood & semen decreased until eventually, it approached zero), so the company needed to find a new way to grow its market. The new blockbuster integrase inhibitors were so effective and tame compared to earlier HIV meds, they could almost stand on their own (so, combined with the existence of OTHER new drugs, the danger of having people develop resistance to Truvada shortly after infection wasn't nearly as huge). Finally, Obamacare -- though still unavailable -- was finalized & coming, and Gilead knew it would be politically impossible for health insurance companies to refuse coverage. Gilead sweetened the deal by offering HUGE rebates to health insurance companies, so the monthly price of Truvada for someone diagnosed with HIV was $2,000... but the monthly price of Truvada for someone taking it as PrEP was only a few hundred dollars. Gilead further sweetened the deal by offering even bigger rebates on Truvada for PrEP if a health insurance company promoted its meds in its formulary.

      In any case, generic Truvada is already available in most of the world, can be ordered via mail fairly easily for around $50-200/month without insurance, and will eventually end up in the US as well (google: "Tenvir-EM"). Although Gilead makes a literal fortune from it in the US (even at its deeply-discounted rebated price, they're making hundreds of dollars per month per prescription), the actual drug is fairly cheap to manufacture... in India, a 30-day supply costs around $25, and even for THAT price, Cipla makes a profit.

      In the US, Gilead also offers free copayment cards that cover the first $5,000 or so worth of annual copayments. So if yo

    5. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who exactly is Truveda marketed towards?

      Here is their commercial and their website.

    6. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > People in a stable relationship with someone infected.

      Yes, but not for the reason you'd think. As a practical matter, someone who's HIV+ and takes their meds will quickly end up with an undetectable viral load, and be practically unable to infect their partner.

      The REAL benefit is that it practically eliminates the risk that HIV- partner will become infected by a random afternoon hook-up, and the subsequent 99.9% likelihood of an angry breakup or divorce once the HIV+ partner discovers that the formerly-negative partner's HIV genotype proves that s/he couldn't possibly have caught it from THEM.

    7. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PrEP also eliminates the need to depend upon someone ELSE doing the right thing in order to protect you.

      If you're on PrEP, it's certainly DESIRABLE for anyone HIV+ you have sex with to take their meds reliably and have an undetectable viral load... but you're still mostly protected, even if they don't. Or if they lie about being undetectable.

      There is one grim reality, though... the current generation of teen and twentysomething gay guys will probably end up having a HIV infection rate that's hasn't been seen since the 1990s, for exactly the same reason why teen pregnancies exploded in the 1970s and 1980s.

      Back in the 1970s and 1980s, young women BEHAVED as if they were "on the pill", but very few of them actually WERE. With an entirely predictable outcome. It wasn't until GenX parents began putting their teenage daughters on birth control the moment they had their first period (dancing around the whole 'sex' thing by pretending it was to reduce menstrual cramps) that the trend finally reversed.

      PrEP has become wildly popular among middle-class gay guys in their 30s-50s who live in cities with large gay populations & probably have gay doctors... but VERY few younger gay guys are on it, and condom use among gay teens (never high to begin with) is approximately 0%.

      Parents with gay male teens MUST get them on PrEP. NOW. Literally, conversation #2 after, "of course we still love you" needs to be, "we made an appointment for you to see Dr. Whomever so you can get on PrEP".

    8. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people who have a lot of MSM sex and don't want to wrap it up.

      incidentally we now have incurable gonorrhea going around, thanks to a public health push that focused exclusively on HIV.

    9. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "incurable", it's just not curable by having a public health staffer give a 3-day Z-pack (Zithromax/azithromycin) to someone and calling it a day. The problem is that lots of STD clinics built their entire business model (or at least, their funding source) around handing out Z-packs, and now they have to hire actual nurses to give intramuscular injections of other antibiotics & depend upon patients taking oral antibiotics for a longer period of time to clear the infection.

      Frankly, if the alternative to large-scale HIV infection rates is larger-scale gonorrhea that takes a few weeks to cure, that's a minor quibble.

      The fact is, condoms aren't very good at preventing herpes, because 99% of MODERN herpes infections come from oral-genital contact, or involve parts of the body that aren't covered by condoms anyway. And nobody, anywhere, propaganda aside, has seriously used condoms for oral sex. Ever. Not even during the nadir of the AIDS epidemic. Because sucking on latex is about as sexy as... er... well, it's not sexy.

      Seriously... there are differences between HSV-1 and HSV-2, but location of primary infection (oral or genital) hasn't really been one of them for at LEAST the past 25+ years.

    10. Re:Some pedantic details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Promiscuous men who like to have other random men insert their erect penises into their anuses and ejaculating. AKA "Bareback cum sluts."

  34. Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I approve this

  35. Re:"There is no evidence that He actually set out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they are treating this guy like God now.

    So his followers doesn't listen to him and uses him as excuse to act like assholes?
    The rest doesn't believe he exists.

  36. Smart poor people.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. will still get fooked by dumb rich people. Bend over beotches!

    What you need are guns, lots and lots of guns. That always changes things.

  37. Evil genius? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Where are the jokes about creating evil super-villains? Or am I joking?

    Actually I think it's way too early to speculate on the effects of this essentially random experiment. In nature most mutations are on the scale from bad to terrible, and the bigger the mutation, the more likely it's fatal.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Evil genius? by PFritz21 · · Score: 1

      I'll make the joke...

      Is nobody worried about Khan Noonien Singh rising to power now? He could be the offspring of one of these girls, rise to power, and launch the Eugenics Wars. Then we'll need James Tiberus Kirk and Spock, a starship Enterprise, and the whole thing becomes a mess.

      Did no one in China watch Wrath of Khan or Into Darkness? Have we learned NOTHING from Star Trek?!?!

  38. Just who does He think He is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God?

  39. Once an old chinese MiG crashed a new US AWACS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once an old chinese MiG crashed a new US AWACS.

    In China until recently, girls were killed at birth because they were useless in farms. So I dont subjectively believe that CCR5 editing in embryos is for protecting these two girls from contracting AIDS in their farm. And I even less subjectively believe it is to breed a pool of chinese girl farmers who will gradually immune the planet from AIDS, even if they invade Africa in Sun Tzu's style, I mean elegantly, or like Zheng He's sailors genetic offsprings in east Africa.

    So it is an old 2016 US publication that CCR5 alteration enhances mice memory, and its publisher says 3 years latter that it very probably enhances human cognition too. The publisher says it will enhance human congnition into impredictable ways and he is visceraly against the eugenic exploitation of his discovery.

    OK, so which nazi strikes first ? Should the old chinese MiG make it very clear in the headlines that China intends to stay in the long term game or should China buy AWACS first and benefit from a modern flying turnkey SIGINT HQ ?

    Well, unless China's nuclear arsenal get obsolescent, I don't see why the actual flood of chinese bright student in Ivy Leagues would not amplify in the coming years. Because there are billions of chinese and the two farmer twins are gonna be the next Nobel Prizes in Princeton, or in Mainland China if Princeton dont accept asians anymore.

  40. Re:"There is no evidence that He actually set out by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, he did create new life.

    On the other hand, we do know that he really exists, so... probably not.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Chinese students are going to be really good at math!

    1. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in student life you can have a long platonic affair with math but on few occasions its good to be HIV immune. Its a very funny feeling to attend a conference about a breakthrough and your first thought to emerge is "and she's HIV immune ...".

  42. Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are GMO crops considered good, yet genetically modifying your own genome considered bad?

    I can't understand the rank hypocrisy being exhibited about this story.

    The fact is in a couple of generations genetic enhancements is be the new normal.

  43. Most of this is inevitable by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    I say embrace it and don't worry about it. In about 2 generations we will be in full gattaca mode

  44. We can't be timid with this stuff by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    It's inevitable that it will be used extensively. We can make the human species immune to a lot of bad things and smart enough to survive. These smarter people could bring us closer to the singularity instead of waiting on AI to do so.

  45. or Reyyyyyyyyy!!!!! by Bromancer · · Score: 1

    Kahn was just enhanced. If they end up perfect in every way, then you need to scream Reyyyyyyyyyyyy!

    1. Re: or Reyyyyyyyyy!!!!! by nevlow · · Score: 1

      Oh, damn, I needed that. Thank you!

  46. Re: IMPERSONATING me AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egg on my face, trucker semen on your face. Looks like I WIN

  47. Oh, we know by Bromancer · · Score: 0

    Enhanced intelligence leads to trouble finding people to date, and being brutally made fun of in life, movies, and television. I am pretty sure everyone who reads slashdot knows. :)

  48. Khan Noonien Singh! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    When do the Eugenics Wars start?

  49. Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened:bioweapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bigger thing is that unlike nuclear, genetic technology can proliferate to the poorest countries with NO oversight, and unlike nuclear the consequences don't stay localized. Humanities philosophy, that progress should flow unimpeded will be sorely tested. As will our level of wisdom and knowledge. Combine that with all the other messes happening and the perfect storm may be coming sooner than expected.

  50. Re: IMPERSONATING me AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You project your own homosexual issue\odd practices so you'll gladly lick it off his face. You do WIN a flavor you crave hahahaha!

  51. Whats the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scariest thing about this is that it appears to be trying to make some kind of super smart prostitute. Umm sorry Twin Prostitutes.

  52. the birth of the paratwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said

  53. If True, Watch out! by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    If the great Pooh bear lives long enough he may find himself being replaced by these girls.

  54. This is why its immoral to experiment on humans by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Our current understanding of how human intelligence works and the role genetics play is still somewhat crude.

    Who can say that the same genetic code variation that makes mice appear smarter could have profound negative effects in humans. It could be a good thing if the consequences of this application of Crispr were better understood, but they are not.

    To be so egotistical to roll the dice like that for personal benefit and whose consequences would be paid by innocent children is psychopathic.
    .

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:This is why its immoral to experiment on humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We agree on ONE thing... This is definitely Your Opinion!

      Your opinion as such is as good as, but no better than any others.

      One person's 'immoral act' may be another persons's moral necessity. Obviously each of these persons is 'morally obligated' to kill the other; Both are annoying if not repugnant (regardless of whether I happen to agree with one of them!)

      Suppose the same genetic modification occurs spontaneously; should the child be euthanized and the parents sterilized? Is Harrison Bergeron the answer?

      "Who can say that the same genetic code variation that makes mice appear smarter could have profound negative effects in humans" -or that they DON'T have profound negative effects? No One. But, if it is forbidden to attempt, how will we know? Is "there are things man was not meant to know" the answer?

      Are 'This Is Forbidden by the High Priesthood" and "Damn the Torpedos, Full speed Ahead!" the only alternatives?

      Appropos Synchronicity Dept: $CAPTCHA=="reproach"

  55. There is no evidence that He actually set out to by theCat · · Score: 1

    LOL! Everything that putrid wanker did stank of eugenics from the start. I guarantee you the ChiComms were all over it. They already harvest organs from "prisoners" to keep their own oligarch class alive and don't give it a second thought. Gene editing for the Peoples' Great Revolutionary Victory would be a logical step.

    Oh and before anyone here starts getting all "hey sign me up for the transhuman upgrade path" remember they can just as easily insert a gene for a fatal protein deficiency that they can then use to blackmail recipients into being Proper Citizens Supporting the Rise of the Proletarian Struggle or else you don't get any of the protein supplements you need to keep your intestines from exploding.

    And -- all these edited genomes walking around are 100% inheritable! They only need to get a few percentage of the current population -- and then give these Patriotic Elements of the Peoples Resistance enhanced reproduction support -- to eventually have a large percentage of the population under control.

    This is not even speculation. This is guaranteed 100% to be the actual plan.

    Humanity is screwed. Don't forget to get your kids immunized if you want to get the best post-partum gene upgrades.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  56. Re: The receptor absence yes... apk by phocutus · · Score: 0

    Youâ(TM)re not your you fucking moron

  57. Re:The receptor absence yes... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > many "nordic" types have it

    It's also more common among many Slavic populations. The Vikings had colonies far inland in areas like eastern Slovakia and western Ukraine.

    Source: American of 100% Slovak-Ukranian ancestry, yet quite unexpectedly, 64% "northern European/Scandinavian" according to my report. One mutated copy (according to the same report), and a lifetime of runny noses and sinus infections to thank my Viking ancestors for.

  58. Re:"There is no evidence that He actually set out by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    I meant that they wrote "He" instead of "he". A joke, not a very good one I guess.

  59. Re:Not even a "nice try" & HOW/WHY? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right, and the military tested every john dick and harry who showed up in 1982 for a lack of CCR5 delta 32, 15 years before anybody even knew what that mutation even was.

    jesus. i can tell you're a bad liar because of the way you utterly freak the fuck out.

  60. WE DON'T LIKE YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like usual, dumbass, you just don't understand. You get shouted down because we don't fucking like you. You can claim the sky is blue and post pictures as proof, and I'm still gonna tell your lying ass to shut the fuck up. This also applies to Ahuxley if that shitbird is reading.

    1. Re:WE DON'T LIKE YOU by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Haters gonna hate. Seethe harder.

  61. Re: Q: How many dicks does apk suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk wants big Black trucker Dick in every hole!
    Ahh the fun times we had

    - Dax

  62. "Inadvertently" Enhanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shure it was all accidental. With population over a billion and fierce competition there's always girl fodder available.

  63. Re: The receptor absence yes... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're, not youâ(TM)re, you fucking moron.

    (You do realize those fuckup-quotes can be disabled on your ShitPhone, don't you?)

  64. Re:Q: How many dicks does apk suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as many as you do. Apk sucks zero. You on the other hand clearly project you do a lot of them.

  65. Re: Q: How many dicks does apk suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk does not want the things you say he does. You do projecting you do.